Conflict Management for Security Professionals PDF
Preview Conflict Management for Security Professionals
Conflict Management for Security Professionals Conflict Management for Security Professionals Andrew A. Tufano AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON • NEW YORK • OXFORD PARIS • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier Acquiring Editor: Brian Romer Senior Editorial Project Manager: Amber Hodge Project Manager: Punithavathy Govindaradjane Designer: Matthew Limbert Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1 GB, UK Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods or professional practices, may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information or methods described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Tufano, Andrew A. Conflict management for security professionals / Andrew A. Tufano. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-12-417196-1 (alk. paper) 1. Private security services. 2. Police, Private. 3. Conflict management. I. Title. HV8290.T84 2014 363.28’90684—dc23 2013027247 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: 978-0-12-417196-1 Printed and bound in the United States of America 14 15 16 17 18 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 For information on all Butterworth–Heinemann publications visit our website at store.elsevier.com Acknowledgments No one works alone or accomplishes anything of real value without the significant support of others. I would like to thank a number of people who directly or indi- rectly assisted with this work. First, I want to thank my wife Cindy, who has “put up with me” while working on this project. There were many long nights and several occasions when I wanted to quit, and she was there to reassure me that the ideas that I was writing about were important and needed to be heard. Next, I need to thank Henrie Watkins for the many hours he spent with me try- ing to “save the world”! I need to thank another friend, Mariusz Ozminkowski, a wonderful writer who encouraged me to finish my manuscript. I also want to thank Scott Martin, a friend and pioneer in the healthcare security industry, who has con- tributed more to this project and my life than he could ever know. Additionally, I am grateful to countless other unnamed security professionals and friends who have been sounding boards for many of my ideas and have chal- lenged me to think more deeply about them. Finally, I would like to thank my father for paving the way. In this case the apple fell close to the tree! “Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.” —Ben Franklin My attempt! About the Author Andrew Tufano has worked in the security industry for over 25 years. He holds a master’s degree from California State University at Fullerton. Over the past 25 years, Andrew has been employed in various senior security positions, including security company owner (PPO), security trainer, and security consultant. He holds various security industry weapons instructor and end-user certifications. He is an active mem- ber of the International Association for Healthcare Security & Security (IAHSS). Andrew has created several business ventures, including Goldstar Security LLC, Goldstar Tactical Training, and the Force Decisions Institute. He is an industry- recognized expert in private-person use of force. Andrew is currently an adjunct professor and experienced college educator at a public southern California college. The author is available to present this material for seminars, training sessions, or conferences. He can be reached at [email protected]. Inspiration I’ve always been fascinated by the way people dealt with interpersonal field conflict. As I grew up in a law enforcement family, my father, brother (both police officers), and I had numerous conversations about violence and how first responders deal with con- flict. (I now continue these conversations with my police officer son.) Our early con- versations focused on police officers who seemingly used excessive physical force to subdue resistant suspects and came under scrutiny, whereas other talks involved police officers who used inadequate levels of physical force and paid for it with their lives.1 Often the officers involved in these conflicts were harshly criticized by the public and their agencies; some were fired. These discussions made it clear to me that first responders have an extremely difficult job deciding the “best” conflict resolution strat- egy to apply when faced with intense and highly fluid interpersonal field conflict. Later in our lives, as the three of us transitioned into the private security market (while my son transitioned from the security field to the law enforcement industry), all of us continued to discuss our own unique conflict resolution challenges. Although there are great distinctions between the law enforcement community and the private security industry, these two industries have at least one thing in common: their personal and corporate success depends on how well they manage and resolve interpersonal field conflict. The Bottom Line To resolve conflict and maintain safe organizations, professional security personnel need access to a full spectrum of conflict resolution strategies. Process I continue to be perplexed by stakeholders who are convinced that it’s pos- sible to maintain high levels of organizational safety without the need to employ 1 On January 16, 1998, Deputy Kyle Dinkheller of the Laurens County Sheriff’s Office was shot and killed after conducting a traffic stop on a rural road about six miles north of Dublin, Georgia. Dinkheller attempted to gain control of a violent, mentally deranged suspect using his verbal tactics training, but he failed. The entire incident was videotaped by Deputy Dinkheller’s patrol car video system. xvi Inspiration professionally trained security personnel who have access to a full range of conflict resolution strategies. Over the past 25 years I’ve been involved in thousands of interpersonal field con- flict interactions while employed in the capacity of uniformed security officer, plain- clothes shoplifter agent, security trainer, security consultant, and security company owner. I can personally attest to the fact that to safely resolve interpersonal field con- flict and protect individuals, security personnel need access to a multitude of conflict resolution options beyond simply “observing and reporting.” Communication Solutions My personal frustrations of trying to find the perfect approach for resolving inter- personal conflict led me to earn a graduate degree in communication. I was assured by many intelligent people that talk was the best conflict resolution solution and a useful substitution for physical conflict resolution strategies. This “conflict reso- lution through communication” approach suggests that with the right quantity and quality of communication, uncooperative individuals could be persuaded, without the need to use physical force, to correct their behavior. The underlying premise for this communicative solution is the belief that if public safety personnel (the commu- nicators) were more patient and understanding with uncooperative subjects, those subjects would be more likely to peacefully submit to those in authority. Negative field conflict outcomes, they argue, is primarily the result of misapplied commu- nication tactics and a lack of self-control on the security individual’s part, which in turn exacerbates (or creates) interpersonal resistance. Some believe that security personnel self-discipline is the key to helping unco- operative subjects understand the error of their ways, thus creating in them the necessary motivation for a change in behavior. Unfortunately, conflict resolution strategies that primarily focus on communication tactics, while minimizing or dis- missing the role of force or protective action, are ineffective, or worse; they create a false sense of safety and don’t provide protection for employees and community members. History has taught us that no matter how well-trained public safety personnel become in the various forms of communication tactics, there are still some violent individuals that cannot be reasoned with and need to be physically constrained from harming community members. There is and always will be a percentage of conflict that can’t be peacefully resolved with just talk. Unfortunately, even those stakehold- ers that affirm this truth2 still don’t trust their own security personnel to effectively use physical conflict resolution strategies to successfully resolve field conflict. 2 See Chapter 6 for a more detailed exposition of conflict and violence. Inspiration xvii These stakeholders don’t see the business value of allowing their security personnel to physically intervene to resolve field conflict, but instead rely on the police. The Reality of Violence Over the years of studying the ongoing battles between uncooperative, dangerous, and violent individuals and private security personnel, I’ve learned the ugly truth that many are still uncomfortable acknowledging: No forceless policy can effec- tively resolve conflict, protect people, and maintain safe and secure organizations. Every business today is faced with the inevitability, unavoidability, and unpre- dictability of conflict. Unfortunately, when conflict is not properly managed, it creates unsafe environments, physical injuries, property loss and damage, and increases in civil liability, and it tarnishes an organization’s reputation. The bottom line is that failure to effectively manage and resolve conflict impedes an organiza- tion’s ability to maintain financial stability. Better Suited There are many reasons an organization’s own security personnel are better situated to resolve field conflict than “responding” law enforcement officers. The most obvious benefit is their ability to respond to the scene faster than the police. When people are being victimized, waiting for help to arrive is rarely preferred over being helped by on- scene Good Samaritans. Even under perfect circumstances, it could take police officers up to eight minutes or more to arrive at the scene of a serious incident3 (Eberly). Invention The primary reason I wrote this book was that I noticed a great deal of confusion in the security industry and among many organizations as to how best to utilize secu- rity personnel in the conflict resolution process. Unfortunately, in many instances security personnel are thought of as part of the problem, not the solution! As I’ve surveyed the industry, I’ve found that no consistent conflict resolution standard or overriding philosophy guides the security industry or many of my clients. One noted exception is found in the healthcare industry.4 3 Current police agency budgetary constraints may also create a much longer wait time for service in some areas. 4 MAB, MOAB, PMAB, and CPI are systematic, low-risk broad-based communicative conflict resolu- tion programs found in the healthcare and hospital industry. xviii Inspiration To meet the unique challenges of healthcare settings, and due in large part to stat- utory and regulatory healthcare requirements (which are rare in other security/safety contexts), a broad-based communicative conflict resolution system5 was developed to deal with passive-aggressive individuals during the initial contact stage of customer service complaints. However, these conflict resolution strategies become less effec- tive (or ineffective) once an individual’s behavior escalates from passive aggressive to directly aggressive and/or in secondary stages of interpersonal contact.6 Escalation in conflict behavior is usually the impetus for “calling security.” When first-responder security or police personnel arrive at the scene of a conflict, it has usually escalated beyond passive aggressiveness to either direct aggression or actual violence. Unlike those who were initially involved at the early stages of interpersonal field conflict, the responding personnel are met with a very different set of interpersonal field conflict resolution dynamics.7 Conflict resolution techniques (e.g., verbal tactics) that may have initially worked are ineffective at the secondary contact phase of interpersonal field conflict. These changing dynamics are the primary reason that attempts to use initial contact or passive-aggressive behavior conflict resolution strategies usually fail when they’re applied by security personnel to higher levels of interpersonal field con- flict. “Communication-only” conflict resolution strategies are typically only effective at the initial contact phase and when dealing with passive-aggressive individuals. The truth is, when communication fails, the only way to safely resolve conflict is for professionally trained personnel to physically intervene as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, many senior stakeholders and those involved in creating these conflict resolution programs fail to understand this basic conflict resolution axiom. The Law of Probabilities Organizational safety is one of the most important challenges facing the 21st- century business community. Unfortunately, many organizations don’t take con- flict resolution seriously. Clients have told me many times that the reason they don’t want to invest in security personnel (or security resources) is that there’s very little chance that anything bad will happen. Unfortunately, the use of probability is often a faulty predictor of risk! The “low probability” of a violent incident happening has been shown time and time again to be a poor indicator of predicting 5 These verbal techniques are used by a wide variety of employee types and in various interpersonal con- texts. However, they’re not specifically geared toward the type of interpersonal conflict that security per- sonnel have to deal with, including resolving field conflict with violent individuals. 6 We distinguish between those who initially make contact with uncooperative subjects and those who are called in “after the fact” to assist with conflict resolution. 7 Interpersonal field conflict dynamics are covered in more detail in Chapter 10. Inspiration xix actual violence.8 This miscalculation creates a false sense of safety for many stake- holders and community members. The day before a deranged murderer killed 20 children and 6 adults9 in Newtown, Connecticut, the Sandy Hook Elementary School administrators and community felt safe. Even in the wake of all these violent incidents, many organizations are still using probability as a reliable method for determining their potential risk. The “It couldn't possibly happen here” approach to conflict resolution keeps organizations from prepar- ing for the inevitability, unavoidability, and unpredictability of conflict and violence. There are many unpleasant realities associated with an organization’s failure to effectively resolve conflict. They range from losing customers and employees to perceptions that their environment is unsafe to losing customers and employees when they’re murdered on an organization’s property! The truth is, most organizations don’t really understand the nature of conflict or how to best resolve it without creating unnecessary organizational risk. But worse than this, organizations often exacerbate the problem by “contracting out” conflict resolution rather than dealing with it themselves. Many organizations avoid being directly involved in attempts to resolve conflict because they falsely believe it’s safer and creates less total liability if they leave conflict resolution to their local law enforcement agency. However, organizations that employ professionally trained security personnel who have access to a wide array of conflict resolution strategies are able to efficiently resolve interpersonal field conflict and maintain safe and secure environments. Recommendations This book is both a persuasive essay and a practical guide for helping organizations map out the necessary organizational processes for implementing reliable interper- sonal field conflict resolution systems. It covers the necessary principles, philoso- phies, policies, procedures, processes, and personnel needed to develop a reliable field conflict resolution system.10 When professional security personnel11 are trained and authorized to use a full spectrum of conflict resolution strategies to manage and resolve conflict within a reliable conflict resolution system, organizations are able to maintain high levels of organizational safety. 8 See Chapter 6 for a partial list of the most current violent incidents. 9 Newtown, Connecticut, December 14, 2012. 10 A reliable conflict resolution system consists of professional personnel, effective processes, and high levels of accountability. 11 We distinguish professional security personnel from basic security personnel. Professional security personnel are held to high training and operational standards and are held accountable for their actions.
The list of books you might like
